American Jews in the NY Times
I think that too many Jews are blinded by their loyalty to Obama and the Democrats, and by the overall liberal zeitgeist that Obama is the “Lightworker,” that they are unable to realize that Obama is really pro-Muslim and anti-Jewish, as are many other gentile liberals, but especially Obama who grew up in an Islamic country. Even many Jews are onboard, because Jews, being the least ethnocentric of all nationalities, often have greater allegiance to intellectual theories like liberalism rather than to their own people, and thus become self-hating Jews.
* * *
It should be pointed out that liberals are reflexively pro-Muslim because they have a natural affinity for underdogs and Islam is seen as an underdog religion compared to Christianity.
Judaism had powerful underdog status immediately after World War II, but after Israeli Jews showed that Jews can kick ass militarily, and build a powerful economy in a region where every other country’s economy is stuck in the Middle Ages, Judaism has lost its underdog status.
Thus liberal Jews now feel guilty about being Jewish the way that liberal whites feel guilty about being white. Which is pretty ironic because the propagation of Judaism is based on Jewish mothers guilting their offspring into observing Judaism. So liberal Jews face double-guilt: guilt if they abandon Judaism, and guilt if they are proud of being Jewish.
Lion of the Blogosphere 
I think you are exactly right about that underdog theory. The Democrats and the US left in general were very pro Jewish and pro Israel for decades after World War II. I’m not sure exactly when it started to change, but I think at the point that Israel was the dominate military power in the mid-east, then suddenly the Palestinians began to look like underdogs.
That’s why there is a slow but steady shift of Jews from the Democrats to the Republicans. I do see a gradual decline of Jewish Democrats over time, as the generations turn over. You may be Democrat till the day you die, but your grandkids may move in a different direction.
The problem is that the long term trends of Democratic hostility to Jews in general and Israel in particular are baked in the Demographic cake. Notice how Europe has changed over the past 40 years. It’s now hostile to Jews. Of course, it was never welcoming to Jews really, but it’s gotten worse as the WW2 guilty generation has died off and they’ve imported Muslims who…let’s face it, wouldn’t object to restarting those cold ovens in the concentration camps.
In the US, our Muslim population is much smaller, but we’re working hard to increase it, and the illegals that every Democrat thinks ensures Democratic Party hegemony forever after they get the vote, is per polling, much more anti-Semitic than native Hispanic populations.
Of course, this could speed up based on events. Say, Iran gets the bomb and nukes Tel Aviv while Obama and Kerry are waving around their latest document with the Iranians, that could push some Jews a lot quicker. Maybe not all, but I think it would make a big difference.
Mike Street Station
March 2, 2015 at 10:54 AM
Europe is not “hostile to Jews.” A few muslim criminals who also target European Christians do not make an continent “hostile to Jews.”
Red
March 2, 2015 at 1:05 PM
Violent crime against European Jews is overwhelmingly committed by Muslims. Presumably a certain percentage of attackers are white skinhead types, but it’s a tiny minority.
Europe’s left has been hostile to Israel for decades. Their political attacks paint Israel as a nationalistic, white colonial power subjugating dumb brown people. In a way their projecting their own ‘white colonial guilt’ (Europe’s equivalent of America’s ‘slave guilt’) onto Israel. America has been slower to turn against Zionism because our liberal elite is proportionally more Jewish than Europe’s liberal elite, but as you can see the Democrats’ position is once again moving to where European liberals have been for sometime.
The Undiscovered Jew
March 2, 2015 at 8:43 PM
I don’t see that happening, for reasons that Norman Podhoretz gave in his book on the subject. The good news is that the Orthodox community is voting ever more Republican (Romney got 90% in some precincts in Borough Park, Brooklyn), and that the Orthodox are increasing as a share of the Jewish population (remember people who are poor, dress funny, and have six kids?). The bad news is that the ENTIRE Jewish population is shrinking. We’ve reached “peak Jew” in America, and our influence is on a steady downward trend.
sestamibi
March 4, 2015 at 10:52 PM
“because Jews, being the least ethnocentric of all nationalities,”
Surely, you jest. Jews are among the most ethnocentric races on the planet. Their first loyalities are always to their fellow Jews.
That said, they are blind to Obama’s strong anti-semitism The real source of it is not his childhood in Indonesia, which was brief, but the 22 years he spent listening to Jeremiah Wright’s anti-semitic rants. E.g., that Jesus was a black west African who was sent by God to chastise the Jews, etc etc
bob sykes
March 2, 2015 at 11:17 AM
“Their first loyalities are always to their fellow Jews.”
Totally wrong, you have been reading too much anti-Semitic propaganda.
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 2, 2015 at 11:43 AM
Prole Jews are more likely to show clannishness than SWPL Jews.
JS
March 2, 2015 at 1:15 PM
Clannishness is a conservative instinct. Prole gentile whites are more culturally conservative than prole SWPL whites. This is just how things are, the average person is more conservative than the elites.
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 2, 2015 at 1:24 PM
Worthy of its own post, perhaps, but I think some on the antisemitic right conflate the hostility toward white, Christian, America, which some secular, liberal Jews have, with ethnocentrism (which they don’t).
One example that comes to mind is the econ blogger Noah Smith. He’s written about how he’s looking forward to America becoming majority non-white, and he’s a big fan of mass immigration, but he’s also said that Israel isn’t in the top 5 countries he cares about.
Dave Pinsen
March 2, 2015 at 3:55 PM
“Jeremiah Wright’s anti-semitic rants. E.g., that Jesus was a black west African who was sent by God to chastise the Jews, etc etc”
That’s anti-semetic to you? What about your statement, “Surely, you jest. Jews are among the most ethnocentric races on the planet. Their first loyalities are always to their fellow Jews.”
This is a great example of the contradictory thinking that Lion has been pointing out.
Russ
March 2, 2015 at 12:48 PM
Irish and Italians are somewhat ethnocentric, but they commonly marry outside their groups with no stigma at all. French and Swedes seem even less ethnocentric. But Jews strongly prefer to marry other Jews even if they are not religious at all. So Jews seem very ethnocentric to me.
George
March 2, 2015 at 1:16 PM
The Northeast is perhaps the most tribal region in America. It’s the most balkanized and segregated. Irish, Italian and Jew ethnics in NYC come across as parochial. The White gentrifiers (carpetbaggers) in NYC are less, but are more openly racist and condescending. What’s the difference between the ethnocentric White ethnics that define the Northeast vs the genteel White racists of greater America? The former group are more socially liberal with conservative politics, where as the latter are more socially conservative with liberal politics.
JS
March 2, 2015 at 1:51 PM
You gotta be kidding. Jews marry outside the tribe in large numbers.
Ripple Earthdevil
March 2, 2015 at 5:47 PM
So Jews seem very ethnocentric to me.
A 71% outmarriage rate for secular Jews is ‘ethnocentric’?
http://www.jta.org/2013/10/01/news-opinion/united-states/pew-survey-u-s-jewish-intermarriage-rate-rises-to-58-percent
Overall, the intermarriage rate is at 58 percent, up from 43 percent in 1990 and 17 percent in 1970. Among non-Orthodox Jews, the intermarriage rate is 71 percent.
The Undiscovered Jew
March 2, 2015 at 8:45 PM
A 2007 opinion survey found that more than half of Israeli Jews believed intermarriage is equivalent to “national treason”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism#Israeli_opposition_to_mixed_marriages_between_Jewish_women_and_Arab_men
What groups are more ethnocentric than Jews?
George
March 3, 2015 at 12:22 PM
Those are Israeli Jews. In Muslim countries, they behead people for converting to a different religion.
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 3, 2015 at 12:54 PM
Surely, you jest. Jews are among the most ethnocentric races on the planet.
I’ll ask this again because I’ve never seen antisemites answer it directly: If Jews are liberal because they’re ethnocentric, why are the most ethnocentric Jews (Orthodox, FSU immigrant, Israeli immigrant) among the politically conservative of any white American group?
Every survey that measures Jewish ethnocentrism shows Jews become more conservative the more ethnocentric they are. 98% of Orthodox Jews marry other Orthodox and usually vote 75% or more GOP. Meanwhile, 71% of non-Orthodox Jews intermarry with gentiles, but it’s intermarried secular Jews who are ethnocentric? Were those Satmar precincts in New York that went 86% for Romney more or less ethnocentric than Jewish New York Times columnists?
“Their first loyalities are always to their fellow Jews.”
Then why did Jews support Obama? The Supreme Jew just spoke before Congress and told American Jews, in diplomatic terms, that Obama isn’t acting in their interests; something that every ethnocentric Jew has been warning non-ethnocentric Jews about for years.
The Undiscovered Jew
March 2, 2015 at 8:14 PM
Obama isn’t anti-semitic, he’s pro-idealistic. And, given that the most idealistic position to hold in the dispute between Israel and the Arabs is to once again place hope that the Arabs will behave differently in the future if peace overtures are sustained, that’s where he’s staking his claim.
To suggest that Arabs will in the future continue to act as they have in the past is to abandon hope and remember, this guy’s all about HOPE. It’s even the title of one of his books.
Curle
March 2, 2015 at 9:46 PM
I’m constantly amused by the cognitive dissonance of liberal love for the “underdog” Muslim. Other underdog groups favored by liberals, such as gays and women, are ruthlessly: murdered, stoned to death, whipped, raped, imprisoned, tortured and covered with absurd tents by the Muslim world. The same lefties who get the vapors when (gasp!) an American baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple have nothing to say when Muslims implement Old Testament punishment for homosexual acts (e.g. crushing gays under a pushed over stone wall!). Gay rights and feminism are conveniently put on the back burner when giving Islamic savagery a pass, and this is a fact which speaks to the overall absurd and illogical nature of the liberal mind (c.f. denial of scientific truths like HBD).
Sanjuro
March 2, 2015 at 11:37 AM
Liberals overlook the abuses of Muslims for the same reason they overlooked the abuses of the communist Soviet Union.
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 2, 2015 at 11:44 AM
Lion, can you explain this?
Yakov
March 2, 2015 at 1:38 PM
“The same lefties who get the vapors when (gasp!) an American baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple have nothing to say when Muslims implement Old Testament punishment for homosexual acts (e.g. crushing gays under a pushed over stone wall!). ”
love this. well said.
i remember susan faludi in some article was saying how the west exploited young women, somehow “forcing” these girls to wear revealing clothes, and how the muslim world was more sensual and female-friendly, since there young women hid their bodies and only revealed themselves for their husbands.
something crazy like that.
rivelino
March 2, 2015 at 4:24 PM
Every liberal I know scorns all religions as equally absurd and false. (I concur.)
Anthony
March 2, 2015 at 11:38 AM
But Islam is an underdog religion, so receives special affection from liberals, who are also on a mission to prove that Muslims are no less peaceful than Christians, Jews, or Buddhists.
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 2, 2015 at 11:46 AM
No one are under dogs anymore, with the exception of blacks, here in the new world and in Africa.
Every group (with the exception of blacks) have been fighting over political power, money and territory. blacks are just oversexed humans who have lower aspirations and ambitions.
I sound like a spokesperson for Bill de Blasio!
JS
March 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM
Saudi Arabia is somehow an underdog? Can you explain this?
Yakov
March 2, 2015 at 9:03 PM
True but if you take this to say that Muslims are therefore absurd in their beliefs about blasphemy etc. you’re indicted for Islamophobia.
chairman
March 2, 2015 at 3:37 PM
Progressivism is the religion of idealism. Like all religions, it scorns the competition.
Curle
March 2, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Lion, You have a really good way of saying something very complicated and explaining an inherent contradiction in the briefest way possible.
Russ
March 2, 2015 at 12:47 PM
Even many Jews are onboard, because Jews, being the least ethnocentric of all nationalities, often have greater allegiance to intellectual theories like liberalism rather than to their own people, and thus become self-hating Jews.
You’ve been reading too much neocon propaganda. Very few American Jews are anti-Zionist, they just aren’t supporters of the Likud party. And they knew, rightly, that even if Obama is an anti-semite, he wouldn’t act on it. All he’s done is refuse to bomb Iran, he hasn’t put any serious pressure on Israel to make concessions, and he hasn’t cut of the 3 billion a year American aid. And Israel is more openly ethnocentric than any White country west of the former Iron Curtain.
Red
March 2, 2015 at 12:49 PM
What propaganda?
It’s certainly true that the average non-intelligentsia Jew is a lot more conservative than self-proclaimed Jewish leaders, and it’s a conservative instinct to support one’s own people.
In the last New York City mayoral election, Jews voted more Republican than gentile whites.
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 2, 2015 at 1:22 PM
It’s not true. Guidos and White Catholics voted for Lhota in large numbers. Just Staten Island alone, would trump every Jewish nook and cranny in Brooklyn and elsewhere, when it comes to Republican votes.
JS
March 2, 2015 at 1:58 PM
It is true based on NY Times exit polls which I analyzed.
https://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/new-york-times-election-map-and-exit-poll-jews-more-republican-than-gentile-whites/
Sorry, but at least in one election, Jews were the most conservative demographic group in New York City.
Many prole Italians voted for De Blasio because of his Italian last name (a mistake they probably won’t make next election).
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 2, 2015 at 2:31 PM
It’d hard to measure “the intelligentsia,” but if you look at elite Jews, they are solidly pro-Zionist.
it’s a conservative instinct to support one’s own people.
That doesn’t make them conservative any more than it makes the Blacks conservative.
Red
March 2, 2015 at 2:26 PM
Blacks are actually very conservative. No, that doesn’t mean they are going to vote Republican. They believe that the Democrats are better for the blacks.
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 2, 2015 at 2:35 PM
Although I made a reference in that old post that Staten Island was pinker than previous years, because de Blasio is 1) has an Italian sounding name, 2) outer borough proles have been shafted under the Manhattan centric Bloomberg, and to a certain extent, under Giuliani, a substantial number of red zones in Staten Island and parts of Queens, voted for Lhota, more so than the Russians and Hasids of Brooklyn.
JS
March 2, 2015 at 3:09 PM
but if you look at elite Jews, they are solidly pro-Zionist.
There are degrees of Zionism. Elite Jews are usually on the squishy, moderate, Israeli Labour end of the spectrum. They want Israel to negotiate first, play nice to Palestinian ‘human rights’, divide Jerusalem, and negotiate with Iran through the UN.
Their position is still weak tea compared to that of the most Zionist Jews. Many Jewish race realists on this blog, including myself, favor blanket, mass deportation of Muslims from Israel and the West Bank, something not even Adelson does. And if Adelson did come out for mass expulsion he’d likely become more conservative on other non-foreign policy Republican issues because higher Jewish ethnocentrism correlates with more political conservatism generally.
The Undiscovered Jew
March 2, 2015 at 8:26 PM
This brings to mind the question- what is the relationship of Jews to the power structure? Are they secretly running things? Or are they only serving the truly powerful, closely and in high status positions but still serving?
My belief is the second. Jews historically have prospered by serving the needs of the rich and powerful, often becoming rich and powerful in the process. But when things go sour, the actual rich and powerful throw the Jews under the bus. It’s nice to have a stooge you don’t give a crap about to hand over to the peasants with pitchforks.
The progressive elite changes its clients over time, depending on who is useful to it. This happens slowly, so people tend not to realize it. But progressives were done with white ethnics right after WWII. Kennedy was the last sop thrown to them. The same process has been going on with blacks. Progressives got tired with blacks a long time ago, and for at least fifteen years or so they have been pushing feminism, marijuana and gay rights and pretty much ignoring black issues. Obama was the last sop thrown to blacks. The Irish got a president, won’t get another, the blacks got a president, won’t get another.
The same thing may be happening with Jews. Do progressives really need them any more? I’m not sure. Jews will continue to be rich and powerful, but they won’t get much consideration for being Jews
thrasymachus33308
March 2, 2015 at 1:02 PM
Ignoring black issues? Then what would you call the beatification of Trayvon Martin and demonization of George Zimmerman, and Michael Brown Jr/Darren Wilson? And the civil disruption under the banner of Black Lives Manner?
Ripple Earthdevil
March 2, 2015 at 6:43 PM
Or are they only serving the truly powerful, closely and in high status positions but still serving?
Elite Jews are mostly interchangeable with elite gentiles. In terms of policy, motivation, and viewpoints, elite Jews differ only marginally from elite gentiles. In cases where Jewish elites are a negligible portion of the elite, the same policies more or less end up being enacted. This is true in the case of the European Union’s elite which is proportionally more gentile than America’s (over 90% gentile in Western Europe vs 70-80% gentile in America).
The Undiscovered Jew
March 2, 2015 at 8:32 PM
Anyone sane could see that tiny Israel is the underdog as they are surrounded by a billion Arabs and Europeans still don’t really care if they drop dead.
fakeemail
March 2, 2015 at 1:16 PM
There aren’t “a billion” Arabs. And they’re Arabs.
Red
March 2, 2015 at 2:29 PM
A billion hostile Muslims then. I am firmly convinced that the “overdog” image of the Israelis has come about because most SWPLs are innumerate.
CamelCaseRob
March 2, 2015 at 9:40 PM
Furthermore, anyone with a half a brain should know that civilization and order is ALWAYS the underdog against the natural state of man which is savagery and chaos.
fakeemail
March 2, 2015 at 1:19 PM
The cause of antisemitism among the upper class in Europe has two principal sources: (1) the fear of competition, and (2) the behavior of Jews (who have alienated the other groups in pretty much every society they’ve ever been included in).
There is no need for the upper class in Europe to incite hatred against Jews in the Muslim population. That already exists.
They use several tools to stir-up hatred among white liberals. One principal toolis to portray Israeli Jews as “white Europeans” and Palestinians as “nonwhite third-worlders.”
Anonymous
March 2, 2015 at 2:00 PM
JS, the name you’re looking for is Earl Butz. For you folks under 50, when he was Nixon’s Secretary of Agriculture he said, “all blacks want is a warm toilet seat, a tight pussy, and pair of loose shoes “
gleep
March 2, 2015 at 2:47 PM
If American liberals see Palestinians or arabs as underdogs, that woukd be evidence against their self conception as “smart” people. With their oil wealth of the last 70 years arab countries could have created comfortable middle classives for their entire populations, much as we do here with subsidies for blacks.
furd
March 2, 2015 at 2:53 PM
I see White Protestants as being the least ethnocentric and the most individualistic, even working-class White Protestants — even working-class White Protestant Southerners! And it’s kind of a bad thing. They don’t even fight to get themselves on the Supreme Court. Jewish people don’t seem that ethnocentric though. Faking Jewishness never helped. (Except possibly for Whoopi Goldberg)
Dave
March 2, 2015 at 3:27 PM
An objective measure of the lack of ethnocentrism could be the % of a particular group that has adopted children of another race. My guess is that white evangelicals would be the least ethnocentric according to that metric.
Dave Pinsen
March 2, 2015 at 6:36 PM
They can’t even afford the kids they have. That proves nothing.
Dave
March 2, 2015 at 7:07 PM
rivelino
March 2, 2015 at 4:18 PM
There are many powerful, influential neo-con Jews starting with Sheldon Adelson and running through government corridors, media centers, and radio talk shows who hate Obama and want to reduce Iran to a pile of radioactive ash.
Mark Caplan
March 2, 2015 at 4:53 PM
i do have a natural affinity for underdogs. you understand me lion.
buckwheatloaf
March 2, 2015 at 5:38 PM
Isn’t there an argument to be made that you are conservative because you want to preserve individualism?
Dave
March 2, 2015 at 7:23 PM
Hetherington and Weiler show that as a group/individual’s perception of threat increases, so does that group/individual’s tendency to profess authoritarian values. This CRUDE metric has been used to show that blacks are the most ethnocentric group due to perceived threat. It is also evident in that Tea Party politics revolves around jingoism, xenophobia, and apocalypse economics. Fear makes great glue.
I assume that as Jews perceive a threat to their values and/or legacy they will drift right. I’m also casually asserting that they apparently don’t have much to fuss over. I can’t be sure though since the most I have to predict with is this crude empirical model.
By the way: Is there a body of literature that shows self-hatred among Jews?
http://www.amazon.com/Authoritarianism-Polarization-American-Politics-Hetherington/dp/052171124X
Plasmatron
March 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM
I forgot to add that blacks profess highly authoritarian values in surveys even though they consistently vote Democrat. Sorry.
Plasmatron
March 2, 2015 at 7:53 PM
If blacks felt threatened would they be committing crime at the rates they do? Or throwing tantrums and riots? No. I don’t think blacks feel threatened at all. If they did they’d be keeping their heads down. In fact, the problem with blacks is that they’ve been pandered to so long they take their security for granted. Blacks vote Democratic because they like handouts and Democrats badmouth whites.
destructure
March 3, 2015 at 10:59 AM
I didn’t say that blacks feel threatened, I said they feel like outsiders.
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 3, 2015 at 11:24 AM
My response was to Plasmatron’s claim that blacks feel threatened. But blacks don’t feel like outsiders, either. Most blacks are a majority where they live. Even in cities where blacks aren’t a majority they still tend to live in neighborhoods and attend schools where they are. Those who don’t chose not to. What drives blacks is the same thing that drives most people — jealousy. Only they’ve racialized it. So they invent canards (and listen to marxists who tell them) that they’re oppressed and persecuted. Blacks are oppressed the same way a homeless alcoholic is oppressed — by their own shortcomings. If you’d spent much time on black blogs you’d know that demands for their own schools, businesses, communities and even country is a common theme. Does it sound like they want to belong? Most blacks want the benefits others create without having others around or at least while marginalizing others. They want to have it both ways. What blacks want is impossible so they blame others for their inability to achieve it. Liberals pander to it for different reasons not least of which is that they view blacks as an inferior race needing to be saved. They have a white martyr/saviour complex.
“And Germans and English are both Protestant whites, so they blend in with the core American ethnicity. Catholics, blacks, Jews, all feel like outsiders.”
Catholics are the largest Christian denomination in the country. Protestants are only a majority if you lump them all together. How much do you really think Baptists, Pentecostals, Jehova’s Witnesses, Lutherans, Episcopalians and African Methodist Episcopal have in common? They are nothing alike and have no more in common with each other than with Catholics.
As for Jews, they’re no more excluded than any other white ethnicity. Jews exclude themselves then feel bad about it. Once again, trying to have it both ways. Not to mention, your own city has the largest Jewish population in the world even larger than Israel. Whites make up only 45% of New York but Jews are 53% of the whites living there for nearly 24% of the total population. The next largest white ethnicity in New York is Italians at 8% followed by Irish at 5%. British make up only 2.5%. Even in America, British are only 13% of the total. And they’re the group you say is the core of America? You see white gentiles as monolithic. But they’re only monolithic when they abandon their own ethnic identity. If you want to do that then have at it. But you can’t have it both ways.
destructure
March 3, 2015 at 10:18 PM
The Democrats are all about pandering to groups, Hispanics, African Americans, women and whatever else “minority.” That’s why groups vote for them. The Republicans are more individualistic. They cower at the word racist. It is deeply offensive to them. That’s why White Protestants, the world’s most individualistic group, are the backbone of the Republican party.
Dave
March 2, 2015 at 7:57 PM
“because Jews, being the least ethnocentric of all nationalities,”
How likely is an English-American or German-American to be carefully following the news from Britain or Germany, to lobby his senator about what should be done with US money and arms to help the UK or Germany? Is our TV and cinema and literature full of jokes about German mothers, English guilt, fears of marrying outside the English tribe, etc.? How many English- and German-Americans even think of themselves as English or German? Many of them probably distance themselves from their ethnicity, because of the prominence of the American Revolution and WWII in how we think about US history.
Irish, Italians, blacks, and Jews in America all talk about their culture and ethnicity all the time, much more than English and German Americans.
I’m not knocking it, in fact I bet it is nice to have that feeling of community and history and all that, but let’s not pretend Jewish-Americans are the least ethnocentric; that’s silly.
gork
March 2, 2015 at 8:55 PM
Neither Germany nor England face any existential threats, so they have no reason to lobby for anything.
And Germans and English are both Protestant whites, so they blend in with the core American ethnicity. Catholics, blacks, Jews, all feel like outsiders.
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 2, 2015 at 11:49 PM
Immigration is an existential threat to both those countries.
Howie Stern
March 3, 2015 at 12:21 AM
I agree with your explanation of why Jews (and blacks and Catholics) are more ethnocentric than white Protestants, but this explanation is not evidence that they are less ethnocentric than white Protestants.
gork
March 3, 2015 at 9:51 AM
They feel like outsiders because they are more group minded living in an individualistic society.
Dave
March 3, 2015 at 4:02 PM
Jews live predominantly in the Northeast, especially NYC, which is the most balkanized and self segregated region by choice in America. Most New Yorkers show very little interest in the people whom they see everyday that are different from them in racial, religious and political terms.
JS
March 3, 2015 at 5:57 PM
Jewish people are less ethnocentric because they do not advocate for just themselves. The trick is to get them to advocate for White Protestants. Look who some of the best advocates of White Protestants are. There aren’t many. Ron Unz is one. And he’s of Jewish background.
Dave
March 3, 2015 at 4:11 PM
The liberal Zeitgeist places WASPS as the least worthy group because they are the top dog. Liberals support underdogs.
The two richest men in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, are both WASPs, and both Democrats.
Of the top-ten richest Americans listed in Forbes, two (Larry Ellison, Michael Bloomberg) are Jewish and the rest are WASPs.
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 3, 2015 at 4:29 PM
Paul Allen, the co-founder and the silent billionaire of Microsoft is Jewish. So is Steve Ballmer. So are the Google boys.
JS
March 3, 2015 at 6:00 PM
I would think that the massive invasion of blacks and muslims would constitute an existential and immediate threat to Europeans. The Jews are extremely selfish and greedy. They work together when it is necessary against host populations, but as they say,”There is no honor amongst thieves”.
They buy up everything with funny money from their legalised counterfeiting rings known as Central Banks which accounts for their success. Intellect doesn’t enter into it at all. The former rulers are cowed into this with blackmail due to sexual favors the Jews gave to them and then photographed. Like the paedophilia rings now being uncovered in Formerly Great Britain.
This laughable libertarian fantasy of cheap labor and offshoring has bankrupted their hosts so now there’s just not enough to go around. Someone needs to be cut out, and it looks like the Tribe in Palestine gets the cut first.
Joshua Sinistar
March 3, 2015 at 3:21 AM
I’m glad that the Jews seem to behave in a more WASP manner with each passing year. I am a proud SWPL so the fact that many young Jews (and young Asians) seem to be embracing WASP SWPL values shows the triumph of my culture.
SC
March 3, 2015 at 12:29 PM
Of all the White gentiles, Italian Americans are the least to embrace WASP values, which is their plight of being the losers among them. The perpetual Guido/Mafia/Prole stereotype, and the overall perception that they are bigoted and “not open minded”, are just 2 things that IAs haven’t overcome.
JS
March 3, 2015 at 6:14 PM
Northern Italians are just fine at embracing SWPL values. In fact, the part of Italy that is north of Rome is held in high esteem as a place for SWPL travel and overseas study.
It’s only the Southern Italians who into being guidos.
SC
March 4, 2015 at 12:51 AM
JS, what is this obsession you have with IAs? MY obsession is understandable – they’re my own people. You constantly claim that IAs are plagued by stereotypes about themselves, yet when an IA defies the stereotype you call him “unnatural” or deny that is he is “really” an IA culturally.
Maryk
March 4, 2015 at 11:50 PM
MaryK, Italian Americans who embrace WASP values are a rare breed. As you should know, WASP is a fancier cachet for a successful SWPL. Most IAs, even among the most educated and “less ethnic” based, whom I’ve encounter, tend to be less open minded, less curious, and not very accepting of people who are different, yet are nevertheless agreeable. Many IAs come across as irrational bigots. Just look at Giuliani, he’s a good example of what is being discussed. He has all the elements of being a WASP, in the likes of Mitt Romney, John Kerry or the Kennedys, yet time after time, he’s made it clear that coming off as a conservative racist, more so than your average White Southerner is a better image for him (and Southern Hillbillies are more affable than your average IA).
Is it a surprise to you that IAs tend to be conservative, tread Republican, and get to be the gold medal finalists for being perpetual racists?
JS
March 5, 2015 at 1:47 PM
IAs are severely underrepresented as elites, Ivy League grads, and coming across as open minded. Jews would be the opposite of IAs, when it comes to these qualities.
Mario Cuomo was perhaps the highest profile IA, who had some inkling of being an elite IA. His son Andrew Cuomo has regressed from his dad’s ideologies, and comes across as a protectionist, who isn’t that different from the guys out in Staten Island.
JS
March 5, 2015 at 2:03 PM
This is not completely clear, there are definitely IA professors at Ivy League schools.
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 5, 2015 at 3:18 PM
And MaryK, you brought up a point that have been discussed over and over again in the various blogs. Why do successful people usually tread liberal, who are open to differences and disdain conservatives, in a country such as ours? Just look no further to IAs, and there’s your answer!
JS
March 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM
If IAs are severely underrepresented as professors in the CUNY system, their presence in the Ivy Leagues would even be more miniscule.
Unlikely Group Charges Bias at University
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/nyregion/15italians.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
JS
March 5, 2015 at 3:33 PM
Yale law professor Guido Calabresi.
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 5, 2015 at 4:15 PM
Here’s one of those other IA blogs emphasizing the fact that IAs are grossly underrepresented in SWPL occupations.
https://niafblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/finding-the-italian-american-power-button/
Even as late as the 1970s, the Italian American community was grossly underrepresented in Washington, in academia, and in the halls of power throughout the country. In June 1971, a New York Magazine article, “Risorgimento: The Red, White and Greening of New York,” addressed the struggles of our community towards assimilation. Not only were we not assimilating, we were being left behind by other ethnic groups that had come to America the same time as our families.
It also appears that IAs are underrepresented in the medical profession, in a book called The Italian American Experience. Not smart enough?
https://books.google.com/books?id=JUyAAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA369&lpg=PA369&dq=italian+americans+underrepresented+academics&source=bl&ots=W7uDFlyVrn&sig=nlb0h2itR51OZdy_XBPeiz91sb4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_NX4VKfxHey1sASchYCwDw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=italian%20americans%20underrepresented%20academics&f=false
I see the current day Hispanics treading the same path that IAs walked. Overall, high prole at best!
JS
March 5, 2015 at 5:23 PM
Guido Calabresi isn’t your typical IA. He was born in Italy, Milan to be exact (that’s Northern Italy) and his parents were educated Italian professionals/bourgeois.
I know a few Italian professors here in NYC, and all of them are from Northern Italy.
JS
March 5, 2015 at 5:32 PM
O/T – but related to your Iran discussion post:
Giuliani wants to oust Iran’s current regime (which means removing the Mullahs). He must be outta his mind!
http://radio.foxnews.com/2015/03/05/giuliani-working-to-oust-iranian-regime/
I guess if you could make it in NYC (clean up NYC and its filth), then you could make it anywhere else!
JS
March 5, 2015 at 5:43 PM
‘Why do successful people usually tread liberal, who are open to differences and disdain conservatives, in a country such as ours?”
If by “successful” you are referring to SWPL, then I’ll say that they trend liberal because people tend to adopt the political/cultural outlook of whatever group they aspire to be in. Outside the narrow confines of movement conservatism (neocon, paleocon, National Review fusionist, Christian Right, etc..) most elite people are liberal. So this discourages conservative minded people from aiming for elite status. And it makes it much easier for those aiming for elite status to shift their values/beliefs to the Left to fit into the group. But whether liberals are “open to differences” is questionable. The shameless stereotyping done by liberal elites of the white ethnics, Southerners, religious people and cultural conservatives shows liberals to be “open” mainly to racial and ethnic diversity alone. Cultural diversity scares the hell out of them. They often find it incomprehensible that anyone could hold alternative viewpoints (e.g. “What’s the matter with Kansas?”)
But what has any of this got to do with IAs? And why are you so seemingly threatened by an IA who attains elite status? Equating Governor Andrew Curomo with guidos in Staten Island is downright bizarre. Anyone who attains a governorship is so highly exceptional that he hardly indicates anything about the ethnicity he belongs to. And if you want to go after Andrew for anything, it should be for the highly un-Italian act of shacking up while a Governor. I personally find this behavior far more embarrassing as an IA than anything guidos do.
Maryk
March 5, 2015 at 9:27 PM
“Yale law professor Guido Calabresi”
The one “guido” Lion respects?
Maryk
March 5, 2015 at 9:31 PM
Father Guido Sarducci?
Lion of the Blogosphere
March 5, 2015 at 9:49 PM
Father Guido Sarducci?
I didn’t see that one coming! LOL! But then Father Sarducci was fictional.
Maryk
March 5, 2015 at 10:27 PM
No, my beef has to do with IAs NOT attaining status. They are the only ethnic group in America who has demonstrated time after time that being elite is not something what they want. Worse off, they are the most parochial minded/irrationally bigoted, sheep minded group of people whom I’ve come across. I hear these prole callers with names like Sal, Luigi, Vincent, phoning into conservative radio stations with their heavy NYC accents calling for the extermination of Muslims and anyone against America, because of ISIS, Iran, and that we need to support Israel. Not only do these people lack in nuance when they speak their minds, they come off as firing hotheads. When did Italians suddenly became staunch allies of Jews? They seem to have more of an interest in supporting Israel than Italy.
JS
March 6, 2015 at 11:52 AM
And regarding my view of Andy Cuomo, is that he’s a good example of what Mario doesn’t want in his family, that is, a prole drift. He lacks the eloquence, refinement and intelligence of his dad. Am I wrong about this?
JS
March 6, 2015 at 11:56 AM
“He lacks the eloquence, refinement and intelligence of his dad. Am I wrong about this?”
I always thought Mario’s “eloquence” was overestimated. That famous speech he gave in 1984, read instead of heard, falls flat – being full of stale liberal cliches. I don’t really see big differences between Mario and Andrew. In terms of IQ, they aren’t likely to be far apart considering how closely related they are and the fact that they both achieved such high political office. You may like Mario more, and that’s fine. But it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s superior in any way.
And if right-wing IAs seem more interested in protecting Israel than Italy it may be because they realize that Israiel is more in danger of extinction. Why would a pro-Israel stance among IAs be a problem for you? Oh, I see now……It proves that they aren’t paraochial and bigoted.
As for IA doctors I have a relative in Staten Island who is one. And his first name is John. Salvatores and Vincents we still have. Liugis we haven’t heard of in many decades. The last Italian-sounding name given to IA boys was Vito. As late as the early 1980’s there were still some boys being given this name. The others have all died out. I knew only two Marios growing up. And surprisingly there were few Angelas in Bensonhurst in the 1970’s and 80’s. The most common girl’s name when I was in high school there as JoAnn. There were so many JoAnns that every time you heard an IA family had a baby girl you’d think “Please God, let them name her anything but “JoAnn.”
Maryk
March 6, 2015 at 9:53 PM
In the bigger asshole contest between Steve Cohen or Alan Grayson, we finally have a winner: Steve Cohen. At least Alan Grayson showed up.
sestamibi
March 4, 2015 at 10:49 PM